The Allahabad High Court recently noted that disagreements and discord in marital life are natural occurrences, and if one spouse ends their life due to such issues, it cannot automatically be treated as abetment to suicide.
Justice Sameer Jain made this observation while overturning a Sessions Court order that had dismissed a discharge plea filed by a woman and her parents, who were facing trial under Section 306 IPC on allegations of abetting her husband’s suicide.
The single judge held that merely uttering words like “he should die” during a marital dispute, followed by the spouse’s suicide, does not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC, as such an act cannot be considered abetment leading to suicide.
Background
In November 2022, an FIR was filed alleging that the deceased husband, who had married revisionist no.1 about seven years earlier, took his life owing to persistent harassment and humiliation by his wife and her parents.
It was alleged that the wife had earlier initiated criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but despite a settlement, she failed to withdraw the case.
The FIR further stated that on November 8, 2022, revisionist nos. 2 and 3 (the deceased’s in-laws) visited the matrimonial home and, during a quarrel, allegedly remarked that “he should die.” A few days later, on November 13, 2022, the informant’s son (O.P. No.2) was discovered dead, having taken his own life.
Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the wife and her parents, and the Sessions Court took cognizance of the matter. When their discharge plea was rejected by the trial court on October 19, 2023, they approached the High Court through the present revision petition.
Submissions
The revisionists’ counsel contended that the abetment allegations were baseless and that disputes between husband and wife were a normal part of marital life.
They argued that there was no evidence of intentional provocation, and even the statement allegedly made on November 8, 2022, could not constitute abetment.
In contrast, the State and complainant’s counsel opposed the revision, asserting that numerous statements and evidence indicated harassment, insult, and instigation, including the in-laws’ remark, which prima facie established an offence under Section 306 IPC.
High Court’s order
The Court observed at the outset that if the material on record, at first glance, does not establish the alleged offence, the accused ought to be discharged.
The bench also referred to Section 306 IPC, emphasizing that instigation is a crucial element of the offence, meaning to provoke, incite, or encourage someone to commit an act.
Justice Jain further remarked:
“Mens rea to abet the commission of suicide is essential for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. If husband or wife or their relatives are being either harassed or tortured but without any intention to commit suicide, then it cannot be said that there was abetment…even if entire material collected by I.O. during investigation are accepted as it is then also it could not be reflected that revisionists were having mens rea to abet the deceased for suicide”.
The Court emphasized that even if witnesses claimed the in-laws told the deceased “he should die” during a quarrel, such words, spoken in the heat of the moment, did not meet the criteria for instigation. The evidence did not indicate that the deceased was left with no choice but to commit suicide.
In this context, the Court concluded that no prima facie offence under Section 306 IPC was established against the revisionists. Consequently, their revision petition was allowed, and the trial court’s order rejecting their discharge plea was set aside.